Madhya Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajaram @ Raja Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2193 OF 199.Rajaram alias Raja. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 25th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 6/12/1996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in ST No.152/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he was to undergo for one month's simple imprisonment in addition.2. The ...
Mohd. Ali Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
WRIT PETITION No.18322/20125. 09.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. On perusal of the return filed by the respondents as also the document placed on record along with the writ petition as Annexure P-6, it reveals that the benefit of Kramonnati was not shown in the said calculation as was admissible to the petitioner on account of making of a scheme by the State Government. However, the calculation (Annexure P-6) indicates that erroneous payment was made to the petitioner, which has been recovered from his retiral dues only because of undertaking given by him. To resolve the dispute in appropriate manner, it would be necessary to get appropriate pay fixation of the petitioner done right from the initial date extending him the benefit of Kramonnati to which he would have entitled to, had the same been released in his favour within time, and a calculation is required to be shown, so as to a...
Komal Ram and Others Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.128 / 2003 (Komal Ram and others ..v ..State of M.P.& otheRs.25-09-2012 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19-12-2002 passed by the respondent/authorities whereby the post of Panchayat Karmi has been abolished because of submergence of the village concerned and abolition of the Gram Panchayat. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that other petitions filed by the similarly placed Panchayat Karmis, who have been disengaged due to submergence of their villages, have been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioneRs.representation seeking employment elsewhere. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.8153/2007 (Maniram Kori and another versus State of M.P.& others).W.P.No.10042/2012 (Santosh Kumar versus State...
Aditya Kumar Tiwari Vs. Shri R. Parshuram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Aditya Kumar Tiwari versus Shri R. Parshuram & ORS.Conc. No.1097 25. 9.2012: Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicant No.3. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for non-applicant No.4. Considering the fact that nonapplicants have rejected the claim of applicant, as is evident from documents filed along with the return, for the present, it is not appropriate for this Court to proceed in the matter. Instead applicant is granted liberty to challenge the orders passed, as is evident from Annexure R1 to R3. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, non applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application disposed of. With the aforesaid the contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Ashok Kumar Kureshiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.16123/12 (s) 25/09/12 Shri Saleem Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Sub Engineer and is substantively posted under Janpad Panchayat Seoni-Malwa on 16/11/10. Looking to the need of work in Janpad Panchayat Bankhedi, petitioner who was substantively working in Seoni-Malwa under Janpad Panchayat Seoni-Malwa was posted by the C.E.O. Zilla Panchayat, Distt. Hoshangabad until further orders in Janpad Panchayat Bankhedi. not treating the petitioner to be an employee of Janpad Panchayat Bankhedi by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 13/07/12, he is being transferred to Singrauli. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is not an employee substantively working under Janpad Panchayat Bankhedi. He was only posted at the said place as a temporary measure while he is working under Janpad Panchayat Seoni-Malwa substantively and treating him to be an employee of Janpad Panchayat Bank...
Shri Ashok Bhatia Vs. Shri J.P. Pateriya (D) Through Lr's: Shri Satish ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.14820 o25. 09.2012 Shri D.S.Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- defendant has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Class- II, Jabalpur in Co.No.9-A/09, whereby the application of respondent, Satish filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of the CPC has been allowed and he has been permitted to prosecute the suit as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. As per available circumstances, initially the impugned suit was filed by one J.P.Pateriya who passed away on pendency of the same, on which his wife Asha Devi Pateriya came on record as his legal representative and after her death the suit was dismissed in default and thereafter the present respondent, Satish Pateriya, son of the principle plaintiff filed the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the suit. On consideration the same was allo...
D.K.Nema Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
D.K.Nema versus State of MP and another. 25.09.2012. Shri Prabhat Asati for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Patan, District Jabalpur. By the impugned order- dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that there is no administrative exigency, petitioner is transferred without any complaint or adveRs.material being available against him and further challenge is made on the ground that petitioner was suspended, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No.17705/2010, the suspension was interfered with and the petitioner was directed to be posted in the same place. Now, petitioner is being transferred and, therefore, challenge is made to the impugned action. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel, invites my attention to the material available on record and submits that initially the pet...
Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs. Shri R.K. Swai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
ramesh kumar patel versus r.k.swai 1 Conc. No.775/2012 25/9/2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 6.10.2010 in W.P.No.3050/2007 (s) has not been complied with. In the original writ petition it was the case of the petitioner that he has retired from service and as departmental enquiry has not been concluded within a period of two years in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P.and others Vs.R.L. Ogale and others - 2006(1) MPLJ 41 the departmental enquiry is liable to be quashed. Learned Single Bench of this Court after taking note of the law laid down in the case of R.L.Ogale (supra) allowed the writ petition and quashed the departmental proceedings and directed for releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a period of 90 days. Inter alia contending that the said order has not been complied with, t...
Tulsi Ram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, School Education Department
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Tulsi Ram versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16196/2012 25/09/2012 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School Chaturkheda, Tahsil Seoni Malwa District-Hoshangabad and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner is transferred to Government Primary School Sohagpur in the same district. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that if the petitioner is transferred, the students-teacher ratio would be adversely effected and working of the school would also be effected. The grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Devakinandan Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 d. n. vishwakarma Vs. State HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.16591/2005 (s) D. N. VISHWAKARMA VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 25-9-2012 ) Challenging the order dated 7.11.2005 Annexure P/3 passed by the Additional Collector, 2 d. n. vishwakarma Vs. State District Tikamgarh interfering with an appellate order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara as contained in Annexure P/1 dated 31.1.2005 and setting it aside, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. In pursuance to a process of selection conducted in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »